Request By:
[NO REQUESTBY IN ORIGINAL]
Opinion
Opinion By: Albert B. Chandler III, Attorney General; James M. Ringo, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
This matter comes to the Attorney General on appeal from the Administrative Office of the Courts' (AOC) denial of Robert A. Fanning's open records request for copies of certain records from the AOC's Courtnet database. Specifically, Mr. Fanning requested copies of all records that met the following criteria:
1. Jefferson County only
2. Civil cases only
3. Cases that resulted in jury trials
4. From 1993 thru 1997
On March 25, 1998, Carol C. Ullerich, General Counsel, AOC, responded to Mr. Fanning's request, advising him that, under authority of Ex parte Farley, Ky., 570 S.W.2d 617 (1978),KRS 26A.200, and KRS 26A.220, court records are not subject to the Kentucky Open Records Act. She further inform him that no program currently existed to provide the information he was seeking; that if a program was developed in the future which would provide the information he requested, the AOC would fulfill his request. However, until such a program was developed, his request was denied.
In his letter of appeal, Mr. Fanning challenges the AOC's reasons for denying his request, arguing that it is unreasonable to construe the requested records from the Courtnet database into a category with the material in Ex parte Farley or to rule it exempt under KRS 26A.220 and 26A.220.
Upon receipt of this office's "Notification to Agency of Receipt of Open Records Appeal," Sara Boswell Dent, Staff Attorney, AOC, submitted a response. She reiterated that on the basis of the case of Ex Parte Farley, Ky., 570 S.W.2d 617 (1978); KRS 26A.200 and KRS 26A.220; and several previously issued opinions and decisions of this office, the records of the court are not subject to the provisions of the Open Records Act.
This office has consistently recognized that records of the courts are not governed by the Open Records Act. See York v. Commonwealth, Ky.App., 815 S.W.2d 415 (1991) and Ex Parte Farley, Ky., 570 S.W.2d 617 (1978). At page 624 of its opinion in Ex Parte Farley , the court said in part:
On its face, the Open Records Law, KRS 61.870-61.884, incl. (ch. 273, Acts of 1976), appears to apply. Whether its provisions conflict with or are harmonious with KRS 26A.200-26A.220, incl. (ch. 22, Acts of 1976 Ex Sess.), we need not decide, because we are firmly of the opinion that the custody and control of the records generated by the courts in the course of their work are inseparable from the judicial function itself and are not subject to statutory regulation.
Previously issued decisions of this office concluding that records of the courts are not governed by the Open Records Act include 96-ORD-84, 96-ORD-173, and 98-ORD-6, copies enclosed.
KRS 26A.200, relative to court records, provides as follows:
1. All records, as defined in KRS 171.410(1), which are made by or generated for or received by any agency of the Court of Justice, or by any other court or agency or officer responsible to such court created under the present Constitution, or a former constitution, whether pursuant to statute, regulation, court rule, or local ordinance shall be the property of the Court of Justice and are subject to the control of the Supreme Court.
2. The Supreme Court shall determine which records were generated, made or received by or for any court.
See also KRS 26A.220 pertaining to the Supreme Court's supervision and control of records of the court.
It is, therefore, the decision of the Attorney General that the AOC has not violated the Open Records Act, as records of the courts are not subject to the terms and provisions of that Act. It is for the courts, and not this office, to determine which policies evinced by the Open Records Law present interference with the orderly conduct of its business, and which policies it will accept as a matter of comity. Simply stated, disputes relating to access to court records must be resolved by the courts. 98-ORD-6.
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating action in the appropriate circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882. Pursuant to KRS 61.880(3), the Attorney General should be notified of any action in circuit court, but should not be named as a party in that action or in any subsequent proceeding.